A Political History of the State of New York Volume III Part 45

To add to the slanderous character of the closing days of the campaign John Kelly, through the New York _Express_, rained fierce personal a.s.saults upon the distinguished editor of the New York _Herald_, who opposed Grace. In bitterness the mayoralty fight surpa.s.sed the presidential contest. Hints of a division of public money for sectarian purposes had deeply stirred the city and given prominence to William Dowd, the Republican candidate, whose interest in the common schools characterised his public activities. Dowd had the support of many members of Irving Hall, who, as they gnashed their teeth in resentment of Kelly's cunning, became unweariedly active in combining the strange and various elements of opposition. Not Daniel himself was more uncomfortably encompa.s.sed than Grace.

The October elections in Ohio and Indiana plainly indicated the trend of public opinion, and on November 3 the Republicans carried New York and the country.[1730] The significant point in the State returns, however, was the severe punishment administered to Kelly. Whomsoever he supported suffered humiliation. Hanc.o.c.k received 21,000 votes less than Garfield, Rapallo 55,000 less than Folger, and Grace 38,000 less than Hanc.o.c.k. In the presence of such a showing the Brooklyn _Eagle_, a Democratic journal friendly to Tilden, thus philosophised: "Bosses and thorough organisation are incompatible. The success of organisation depends upon reason. The success of the boss is due to underhand arts. No young man can hope for the favour of a boss who does not begin by cultivating the temper of a lick-spittle."[1731]

[Footnote 1730: Garfield, 555,544; Hanc.o.c.k, 534,511; Weaver (Greenback), 12,373. Judge of Appeals: Folger, 562,821; Rapallo, 517,661; Armstrong (Greenback), 13,183. Mayor of New York: Grace, 101,760; Dowd, 98,715. Legislature: a.s.sembly, Republicans, 81; Democrats, 47. Senate (hold over): Republicans, 32; Democrats, 18.

Republican majority on joint ballot, 52.]

[Footnote 1731: November 6, 1880.]

CHAPTER x.x.xV

CONKLING DOWN AND OUT

1881

In the speakers.h.i.+p contest of January, 1881, the anti-Conkling leaders discovered a disposition to profit by the election of Garfield. They wanted to learn their voting strength, and to encourage a.s.semblymen to oppose George H. Sharpe, the Stalwart candidate, the _Tribune_, in double-leaded type, announced, apparently with authority, that the President-elect would not allow them to suffer.[1732] This sounded a trifle warlike. It also quickly enhanced the stress between the opposing factions, for those who are themselves not averse to wire-pulling are morbidly suspicious of intrigue in others.

[Footnote 1732: New York _Tribune_ (editorial), January 3, 1881.]

But nothing came of the _Tribune's_ announcement. Sharpe's creditable service on Grant's staff, his cleverness as a Stalwart manager, and his acceptability as a speaker of the preceding a.s.sembly, brought him troops of friends. Although making no pretensions to the gift of oratory, he possessed qualities needed for oratorical success. He was forceful, remarkably clear, with impressive manners and a winning voice. As a campaign speaker few persons in the State excelled him.

Men, too, generally found him easy of approach and ready to listen. At all events his tactful management won a majority of the Republican a.s.semblymen before the opposition got a candidate into the field.

Under these circ.u.mstances members did not fancy staking good committee appointments against the uncertainty of Presidential favours, and in the end Sharpe's election followed without dissent.

In the election of a United States senator to succeed Francis Kernan on March 4, the Stalwarts did not find such smooth sailing. For several years, ever since the gubernatorial nomination in 1876, jealousy, acc.u.mulated resentment, and inevitable distrust had divided them, but not until Thomas C. Platt of Owego and Richard Crowley of Niagara announced their candidacy did the smouldering bitterness burst into a blaze. Cornell and his friends promptly declared for Platt, while Arthur, Sharpe, Thomas Murphy, and John F. Smyth, known as ultra Conkling men, wheeled into line for Crowley. Conkling held aloof. He probably preferred Levi P. Morton, although each candidate claimed to be his preference. In the end Morton's name was tangled up in the controversy, but he did not really get into it. Besides, a place in the Cabinet seemed open to him.

At this time Cornell was at the height of his power. Prior to his inauguration he had not stood for much in the way of statesmans.h.i.+p. He was known princ.i.p.ally as the maker and chauffeur of Conkling's machine, which he subsequently turned over to Arthur, who came later into the Conkling connection from the Morgan wing. Moreover, the manner of his election, the loss of many thousand Republican votes, and his reappointment of Smyth seriously discredited him. But friend and foe admitted that he had shown real ability as governor. He had about him no angles and no surprises. He exercised authority cautiously, marshalled facts with skill, and presented clear and enlightened reasons for his action. He seemed to be above rather than below the level of his party, and his official colleagues, working in harmony with his policies, found him honourable, if sometimes stubborn and aggressive.

But in his relations to men as well as to policies he had betrayed a disposition to change position. He did not attend the Chicago convention. Nor did Arthur's nomination, brought about largely by Sharpe's activity, particularly please him. While he behaved with decorum and perhaps with loyalty, it was evident that if he did not raise the standard of revolt, he had chosen to fight for his hand.

This became the more apparent as the senatorial contest progressed. A grim darksomeness about the expression of his countenance showed that he took a sullen satisfaction in humiliating those who had humiliated him. It was deftly done, but in the result it left its impression.

Crowley, then in his forty-sixth year, was well equipped for the Senate. As a forceful speaker he was an object of respect even by his opponents. In whatever legislative body he appeared he ranked amongst the foremost debaters, generally speaking with an enlightenment and a moderation that did credit to his intellect and to the sweetness of his nature. He had served four years in the State Senate, one term in Congress, and eight years as United States attorney in the Northern District, being justly distinguished as one of the able men of Western New York. He was sadly handicapped, however, by the infirmity of his backers. Sharpe excited the deepest resentment by withholding the appointment of the a.s.sembly committees;[1733] and Smyth and Murphy represented all that was undesirable in politics.

[Footnote 1733: "Senator Woodin spoke of Truman G. Younglove, the only speaker in the history of the State who had dared to hold back the committees in order to influence a senatorial caucus, as a 'political corpse,' and said that Sharpe would share his fate."--New York _Tribune_, January 13, 1881.]

Cornell was fortunate in his candidate. Platt's cool, quiet methods had aroused little antipathy, while around him gathered loyalty and grat.i.tude. Very early in the contest, too, it began to be whispered that if elected he might act independently of Conkling. To think of a light-weight sparring up to a recognised champion tickled the imagination of the Independents who numbered about forty, of whom Chauncey M. Depew was the choice of a majority.[1734] Ira Davenport of Steuben, a State senator of decided character and strength, supported his brother-in-law, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie, and others talked of Vice-President Wheeler. George William Curtis argued that the aim of the Independents should be to vote for the cause even if they voted for different candidates, and thus show to the country and to Garfield that a large and resolute opposition to the ruling organisation existed in the party.[1735]

[Footnote 1734: "Blaine, representing Garfield, came to New York and asked me to enter the contest for the purpose of securing the election of a senator who would support the Administration. That was the reason why I became a candidate."--Interview of Mr. Depew with the author, February 19, 1909.]

[Footnote 1735: _Harper's Weekly_, February 5, 1881.]

On the other hand, Depew's friends thought it wiser to "split the machine." It was a taking proposition. If the two senators, they argued, differed upon questions of patronage, the one agreeing with the President would undoubtedly prevail. Thus the Senator and the Governor, backed by the patronage of the State and Federal administrations, would control a machine of great possibilities.

Conkling appreciated the danger, and Warner Miller and William H.

Robertson approved the plan.

Miller was then in the prime of life. He combined the occupations of manufacturer and farmer, evidenced marked capacity for business, and gave substantial promise of growing leaders.h.i.+p. From the schools of Oswego he had entered Union College, and after teaching in Fort Edward Collegiate Inst.i.tute he became a soldier. Since 1874 he had been in the a.s.sembly and in Congress. He was fully six feet tall, well proportioned, with a large head, a noticeably high forehead, a strong, self-reliant, colourless face, and a resolute chin. A blond moustache covered a firm mouth. He had the appearance of a man of reserve power, and as a speaker, although without the gift of brilliantly phrased sentences, he made a favourable impression. His easy, simple manner added to the vigour and clearness of his words. Perhaps in the end he fell short of realising the full measure of strength that his ardent friends antic.i.p.ated, for he possessed none of the characteristics of the boss and seemed incapable of submitting to the daily drudgery that political leaders.h.i.+p demands. But for several years the reasonableness of his opinions had an unmistakable influence upon the judgment of men. Certainly, in 1881, his opinion greatly strengthened the Depew scheme, and it soon became apparent that a sufficient number of Independents could be relied upon to choose Platt. In the conference that followed the latter promised to support the Garfield administration. "Does that statement cover appointments?" asked Woodin. Platt said it did. "Even if Judge Robertson's name should be sent in?" insisted Woodin. Platt replied, "Yes."[1736] That settled it, and Platt's nomination occurred on the first ballot.[1737] Among the earliest to send him congratulations was Senator Conkling.

[Footnote 1736: Interview of Mr. Depew with the author, March 28, 1909.

See also New York _Tribune_, January 9, 1882. "Among others present at the conference," added Depew, "were Webster Wagner, John Birdsall, Dennis McCarthy, and William H. Robertson of the State Senate, James W. Husted, and George Dawson of the Albany _Evening Journal_. Woodin remarked, 'We can trust Platt, and when he's elected senator we shall not need a step-ladder to reach his ear.'"]

[Footnote 1737: Total vote in caucus, 105. Necessary to a choice, 53.

Platt, 54; Crowley, 26; Rogers, 10; Wheeler, 10; Lapham, 4; Morton, 1.

The election, which occurred on January 18, resulted: Senate, Platt, 25; Kernan, 6; a.s.sembly, Platt, 79, Kernan, 44.]

After the campaign of 1880 Conkling seemed to dismiss the feeling exhibited toward Garfield at Chicago, and in February (1881), at the invitation of the President-elect, he visited Mentor. The Senator asked the appointment of Levi P. Morton as secretary of the treasury, and Garfield consented to give him the Navy, or select Thomas L. James for postmaster-general. "This conference was not wholly satisfactory,"[1738] but Conkling's position at the inauguration ceremonies, voluntarily taken directly behind Garfield while the latter read his inaugural address, indicated a real friends.h.i.+p. His motion in the Senate that James be confirmed as postmaster-general without the usual reference to a committee seemed to support this belief, an impression subsequently stimulated by the prompt confirmation of William M. Evarts for commissioner to the International Monetary Conference, Henry G. Pearson for postmaster of New York, and Levi P. Morton for minister to France.[1739] Two weeks later came a bunch of five Stalwarts.[1740] The next day (March 23) Garfield nominated William H. Robertson for collector of customs at New York and Edwin A. Merritt for consul-general to London. "That evens things up," said Dennis McCarthy, the well-known Half-breed of the State Senate. "This is a complete surprise," added Robertson. "To my knowledge no one has solicited for me any place under Garfield. It comes entirely unsought."[1741] It was no less a surprise to the Stalwarts. Not a hint of it had been dropped by the President. "We had been told only a few hours before," wrote Conkling, "that no removals in the New York offices were soon to be made or even considered, and had been requested to withhold the papers and suggestions bearing on the subject until we had notice from the President of his readiness to receive them."[1742] Indeed, the nomination came with such suddenness that the action seemed to be hasty and ill considered.

[Footnote 1738: Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 634.]

[Footnote 1739: Morton declined the navy portfolio, preferring the mission to France.]

[Footnote 1740: Stewart L. Woodford, U.S. attorney, and Louis F. Payn, U.S. marshal for the Southern District; Asa W. Tenney, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District; Clinton D. MacDougall, U.S. marshal for the Northern District; and John Tyler, collector of customs, Buffalo.

These were reappointments.]

[Footnote 1741: New York _Tribune_, March 24, 1881.]

[Footnote 1742: From Conkling's letter of resignation.--New York _Tribune_, May 17, 1881.]

There is much literature on the subject. Reminiscences of public men during the last decade have opened a flood of memories, some of them giving specific statements from the princ.i.p.al actors. Blaine a.s.sured George S. Boutwell that he had no knowledge of Robertson's nomination until it had been made, and Garfield told Marshall Jewell that Blaine, hearing of the nomination, came in very pale and much astonished.[1743]

Garfield wrote (May 29, 1881) Thomas M. Nichols, once his private secretary, that "the attempt to s.h.i.+ft the fight to Blaine's shoulders is as weak as it is unjust. The fact is, no member of the Cabinet behaves with more careful respect for the rights of his brother men than Blaine. It should be understood that the Administration is not meddling in New York politics. It only defends itself when a.s.sailed."[1744] The President said to Conkling, declares h.o.a.r, that he desired to make one conspicuous appointment of a New York man who had supported him against Grant, and that thereafter, upon consultation with the two Senators, appointments should be made of fit men without regard to factions. To this Conkling refused his consent, stoutly objecting to Robertson's appointment to any important office in this country. "Conkling's behaviour in the interview," said President Garfield "was so insolent that it was difficult for him to control himself and keep from ordering him out of his presence."[1745] Conkling says the President, on the Sunday preceding the appointment, informed him "that the collectors.h.i.+p of New York would be left for another time."[1746] In a statement purporting to come from the President, Jewell relates that when the five Stalwart nominations went to the Senate, Garfield was immediately burdened with letters and despatches in protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had been surrendered to Conkling, and that without delay or consultation he sent in Robertson's name. "It was only an instance," says Boutwell, "of General Garfield's impulsive and unreasoning submission to an expression of public opinion, without waiting for evidence of the nature and value of that opinion."[1747]

[Footnote 1743: Boutwell, _Reminiscences of Sixty Years_, Vol. 2, p.

274.]

[Footnote 1744: New York _Tribune_, January 7, 1882.]

[Footnote 1745: h.o.a.r, _Autobiography_, Vol. 2, p. 57.]

[Footnote 1746: Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 273.]

[Footnote 1747: _Ibid._, p. 274.]

On the other hand, the country at large accepted it as a Blaine triumph. Senators, especially those who had served in the House with the President and his Secretary of State, had no doubt of it. Such a tremendously bold act was entirely foreign to Garfield's character.

Nor could it have but one meaning. The man who had split the New York delegation for Blaine was to have his reward and to occupy the place of patronage and of power. More than that it was Blaine's long look ahead. Such action required the highest order of political courage. It opened an old quarrel, it invited opposition, it challenged to battle.

Men like Senator Frye of Maine, who had many times witnessed the resolution and dominating fearlessness of Blaine, knew that it was his act. "For sixteen years," said Frye, "the sting of Blaine's attack kept Conkling unfriendly. Besides, he had no confidence in him.

Whenever reconciliation seemed imminent, it vanished like a cloud-shadow. I could never unite them. Blaine was ready, but Conkling would accept no advances. When Robertson's appointment came he knew as well as I that it was the act of Blaine."[1748] Depew, with whom Blaine had conferred, took the same view. On the day after the nomination was sent in, Mrs. Blaine, rather exultingly and without any expression of surprise, wrote her daughter of the incident. "Your father has just gone to the Department. Did you notice the nominations sent in yesterday? They mean business and strength."[1749]

[Footnote 1748: Conversation with the author, December 7, 1908.]

[Footnote 1749: Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (March 24, 1881), Vol.

1, p. 197.]

Boutwell ill.u.s.trates Conkling's lack of confidence in Blaine. After the latter had become secretary of state he said to the Ma.s.sachusetts Senator that Conkling was the only man who had had three elections to the Senate, and that he and his friends would be considered fairly in the New York appointments. "When in conversation with Conkling, I mentioned Blaine's remark, he said, 'Do you believe one word of that?'

I said, 'Yes, I believe Mr. Blaine.' He said with emphasis, 'I don't.'

Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opinion."[1750]

[Footnote 1750: _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 273.]